this post was submitted on 19 Sep 2026
763 points (98.8% liked)

Microblog Memes

12171 readers
3011 users here now

A place to share screenshots of Microblog posts, whether from Mastodon, tumblr, ~~Twitter~~ X, KBin, Threads or elsewhere.

Created as an evolution of White People Twitter and other tweet-capture subreddits.

RULES:

  1. Your post must be a screen capture of a microblog-type post that includes the UI of the site it came from, preferably also including the avatar and username of the original poster. Including relevant comments made to the original post is encouraged.
  2. Your post, included comments, or your title/comment should include some kind of commentary or remark on the subject of the screen capture. Your title must include at least one word relevant to your post.
  3. You are encouraged to provide a link back to the source of your screen capture in the body of your post.
  4. Current politics and news are allowed, but discouraged. There MUST be some kind of human commentary/reaction included (either by the original poster or you). Just news articles or headlines will be deleted.
  5. Doctored posts/images and AI are allowed, but discouraged. You MUST indicate this in your post (even if you didn't originally know). If an image is found to be fabricated or edited in any way and it is not properly labeled, it will be deleted.
  6. Absolutely no NSFL content.
  7. Be nice. Don't take anything personally. Take political debates to the appropriate communities. Take personal disagreements & arguments to private messages.
  8. No advertising, brand promotion, or guerrilla marketing.

RELATED COMMUNITIES:

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] OhStopYellingAtMe@lemmy.world 9 points 16 hours ago* (last edited 16 hours ago) (1 children)

If you want to prove a point: Trebuchet them into active volcanoes. It uses no propellant, very little effort, and gets the point across.

If you want to be efficient: Grind them up and use their corpse-meal as compost. Spread them in a field, grow hemp and/or soybeans.

[–] MousePotatoDoesStuff@piefed.social 15 points 21 hours ago (1 children)
  1. Please don't pollute interstellar space with assholes. It's bad enough that we filled Earth with them.
  2. If I wanted to be efficient, I'd drop them in an active volcano. If I want someone thrown into the Sun, I WANT SOMEONE THROWN INTO THE SUN.
[–] echodot@feddit.uk 7 points 19 hours ago (1 children)

You can have your cake and eat it. Launch them into a different sun, we can create a congo line of frozen corpses, on their way to Alpha Centauri. Although it might weird any aliens out that might come across it.

Good pitch, I like it.

[–] kamen@lemmy.world 2 points 16 hours ago

^ This guy efficients.

[–] skisnow@lemmy.ca 4 points 19 hours ago

Yeah I’m not risking them coming back later with an alien army

[–] beaker@feddit.online 19 points 1 day ago (2 children)

If you accelerate to a very high orbit, you will have nearly zero velocity at the apoapsis. From there it takes only a very small delta v to reduce your velocity to zero and fall into the sun.

Source: This is how I killed Jebidiah Kerman.

[–] Eddyzh@lemmy.world 1 points 7 hours ago

This only worked because Jedediah did not die in the many years it took time wraping between your maneuvres.

For the sun instead of Krebol, Jupiter might most likely throw you of track within then 200-300 years. So you would have to spend more than on escape. Even though theoretically (and in KSP), you can spend exactly only escape dV

[–] BeMoreCareful@lemmy.world 2 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

This is the part I don't understand apparently. Wouldn't it be pretty easy for the thing so giant that it causes other giant things to circle it suck up a tiny person relatively easily?

[–] SparroHawc@lemmy.zip 2 points 6 hours ago

If the tiny person wasn't going so fast that it's in orbit around the big thing, yeah - all you have to do to get the person to fall in is to stop them moving. The problem is that you have to push them reeeeeal hard to get them to stop moving in orbit around the sun. (That's what Delta-v means - change in velocity.)

[–] ProjectAzar@lemmy.world 58 points 1 day ago (2 children)

I need you to understand that when I want someone launched into the sun, it's not because it is easy, but because it is hard. I want to go to the extra effort and delta v necessary so that we can make it abundantly clear that you, evil horrible cretin, are worth the collective effort of thousands to personally be launched into the sun.

[–] starik@lemmy.today 3 points 1 day ago

Ok, JFK, calm down.

[–] OwOarchist@pawb.social 10 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Can we compromise by strapping them to the launch pad directly underneath the rocket before it's ignited?

[–] edgemaster72@lemmy.world 8 points 1 day ago (1 children)

But then you miss out on all the time they would spend contemplating how they ended up in that situation, damn millenials trying to kill the record scratch industry.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Kolanaki@pawb.social 11 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

Send them to the bottom of the ocean. Concrete shoes are a lot less expensive than a rocket. Probably more environmentally friendly, too.

[–] hansolo@lemmy.today 6 points 21 hours ago

Even more environmentally friendly, use a geopolymer cement that doesn't use a quicklime reaction that requires heat to produce.

[–] bitteroldcoot@piefed.social 65 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Yes. It's surprisingly hard to get something to hit the sun.

What you have to do is slow down. Remember we are orbiting it.

[–] FiniteBanjo@feddit.online 29 points 1 day ago

You'd think a giant mass like that might have some helpful gravity, but we're all in a stable orbit with a strong angular momentum.

[–] victorz@lemmy.world 17 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Throw them backwards really hard.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] gedaliyah@lemmy.world 9 points 1 day ago

I get that it's very difficult to send something directly into the Sun. Couldn't you just put them into a highly eccentric and unstable orbit that would crash into the sun after several passes?

[–] humanspiral@lemmy.ca 6 points 1 day ago

frankly, yeeting them 50m into the air is enough to give them a bad day.

[–] ashenone@lemmy.ml 27 points 1 day ago (7 children)

Can someone explain why it's easier to yeet something out of the solar system, than to yeet something into a massive gravity well?

My dumbass thanks you in advance

[–] Seiyus@lemmy.world 45 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

Orbital speeds. Remember earth and by consequence everything on it is moving at 30km/s. Most efficient way to hit the sun is to cancel that out, or decelerating until your velocity relative to the sun is 0 and then gravity does the rest of the work. Orbiting a stellar object is missing with flair. It’s easier to entirely miss the sun by accelerating at roughly 12 Km/s additional velocity which will allow you to escape the sun’s gravity. Or 40% of the delta V (more velocity is not linear fuel expended either, more exponential with needing roughly 99x more fuel to do one than the other… not even accounting for the chase of now accelerating that fuel weight.)

[–] Ice@lemmy.zip 24 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Well, technically, the more efficient way to hit the sun would be some gravity assists into the outer solar system and then slowing down to zero at a higher point, where your orbital velocity will be lower.

[–] Sturgist@lemmy.ca 9 points 1 day ago

Well, technically

The best kind of correct!

[–] jballs@sh.itjust.works 13 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Just download Kerbal Space Program and it'll all become clear. It's a blast and accidentally teaching you orbital mechanics.

[–] OddMinus1@sh.itjust.works 7 points 21 hours ago

Make sure to buy the original in that case.

Do NOT buy Ksp2. That game is a very unfinished early access game which has been conpletely abandoned, and it's shameful that it's still listed in the Steam store.

[–] just2look@lemmy.zip 16 points 1 day ago

The earth is moving rapidly around the sun, so anything we launch is already orbiting the sun. To hit the sun you then have to counteract all that momentum. To escape the solar system you just have to add a bit more speed to what we already have. Though both take a lot of energy.

[–] foofiepie@lemmy.world 6 points 1 day ago

We’re technically falling towards the Sun.

We don’t hit it, because we’re also moving around it at a crazy speed.

So even though we’re falling, we permanently miss it. If that makes sense.

The change in speed (deceleration) it would take to slow us down enough that we fall directly towards and into the Sun… is greater than the change in speed required to go fast enough to fly away from it.

So, you need energy to either change your velocity by 30km/s, or by 12km/s.

Hence, easier to speed up a ‘little bit’ more.

[–] gezero@sopuli.xyz 8 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Right now you are flying, together with earth more or less the speed you need to stay orbiting the sun forever.

Add a "little" speed and you fly away

[–] _druid@sh.itjust.works 4 points 1 day ago (1 children)

A soccer player needs to either score a goal, which would be hitting the sun. Or they need to knock it out of bounds, which would be sending out of the solar system.

Both require power to drive the vehicle, but only one needs accuracy.

[–] arctanthrope@lemmy.world 9 points 1 day ago

more like, you need to hit a goal at the bottom of a funnel-shaped pit, but you're in a car driving in circles on the walls of the funnel at 100mph, and anything going 150 mph shoots out of the top of the funnel. aim isn't the problem, the shape of the funnel will take care of that. the issue is to get to the bottom you have to kick the ball backward hard enough to cancel out the speed of the car, i.e. 100mph, whereas to launch out of the pit, you only have to kick the ball forward at 50mph. if you kick backwards at 50mph, the ball will just keep circling the pit at 50mph; it might eventually reach the bottom but it will take a long time

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] plyth@feddit.org 9 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Isn't it possible to use some swing-by maneuver around other planets to fly directly into the sun?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_assist

[–] OddMinus1@sh.itjust.works 3 points 21 hours ago

No idea if this has any real world application, but Kerbal Space Program taught me that launching outwards to a huge planet (Jupiter), one can get a reverse gravity assist to get an extremely narrow ellptical orbit. Then you just need a light retrograde thrust at the apoapsis, and your orbit will intersect with the sun

[–] adjectivenoun@lemmy.world 5 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Yeah. Check out the path they launched the Parker Solar Probe on. That wasn't into the Sun, but it was as close as anything we've ever sent up.

[–] DScratch@sh.itjust.works 14 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I suppose we could sent them to a Lagrange point and call it good?

[–] MelodiousFunk@slrpnk.net 12 points 1 day ago

I'd be satisfied with a sub-orbital parabola in the general direction of *gestures at sky*

Someone on the other end might need a mop but ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[–] LodeMike@lemmy.today 5 points 1 day ago

I'm assume the reason why is because, in order to go into the sun, 100% of Earth's rotational velocity has to be counteracted, and it doesn't for the opposite direction?

[–] dohpaz42@lemmy.world 7 points 1 day ago

What about launching them into Venus? It’s smaller, and closer. Would that save on gas?

~I think I got three-fitty in my center console.~

But I want to picture them burning not freezing or running out of oxygen.

[–] AzuranAurora@piefed.ca 3 points 1 day ago

I prefer the idea of firing them off a cliff with a trebuchet instead. Same end result, far less expensive, and they're aware the entire time they're plummeting to their doom. Plus trebuchets are inherently funny.

[–] rainbowbunny@slrpnk.net 3 points 1 day ago

It's surprisingly difficult to launch anything out of the solar system due to orbits and the Oort Cloud. Not saying the sun is easy, but in my opinion, it's definitely more realistic.

[–] victorz@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago

So we can't just do the same thing that we do to get something out of the solar system, but "in reverse"? Like a reverse/inverted slingshot? Use the inner planets to brake?

Or how about this, do a slingshot maneuver, but only a single one, that launches it softly straight outwards from one of the planets, in line with the sun. Then just wait until it loses momentum and starts falling straight into the sun. Would that take too long, maybe?

Like if we just dropped something into existence at 1 AU from the sun without any orbital momentum, how long would that object take to fall into the sun?

load more comments
view more: next ›